We performed a comparison between MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and webMethods API Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."This is a good API management product."
"The product improved data exchange processes by enhancing communication between various messaging queues. There was a heavy reliance on queues for indexing clusters and data transfer in this particular environment. The product facilitated the transfer of messages from one queue to another, ensuring data flow and processing across different topics."
"The security features are good. It's easy to configure the end-to-end integration with existing applications."
"The scalability is good. It's passable."
"One of the more valuable features is the stability of the platform."
"The solution has been very stable."
"If you adopt the whole platform, you can build composable applications. This will cut your time creating new applications and updating them – once you have everything running – by up to 50%."
"The developer portal is easy to integrate. It is easy to use, easy to integrate, and I like the developer portal."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution for me has been the configuration-based UI. Once you get the hang of it, it enables you to easily develop an API. In addition, it has many in-built policies that are quite handy."
"What I like the most about the solution is that it comes with ready-made tools like handling security tokens and OAuth."
"Within the new version, webMethods API Gateway gives us an end-to-end lifecycle from the creation of the API up into the development, deployment, and promotion into production/live. The current end-to-end lifecycle of the API gives us enough authority and governance of the API. We know what are currently live services, what is in the testing stage of development, and what version that has been commissioned. So, the full life cycle itself gives us full authority and governance of the API."
"The developer portal is a valuable feature."
"In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature."
"The cloud version of the solution is very easy to set up."
"It's a good tool, and it has a stable messaging broker."
"There were no complexities involved in the setup phase...The product is able to meet my company's API protection needs."
"It can offer workflows, orchestration, and webhooks."
"The dashboards in Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager could improve."
"Their analytics needs a lot of improvement. It's really lacking right now."
"Since most components are situated in the cloud, there's one particular hosted in the cloud. This presents a considerable challenge. While all other components are implemented on-premises, this specific one isn't permitted to be hosted in the cloud as per customer requirements. Shifting this component to an on-premises environment requires a significant effort."
"The pricing is a bit expensive."
"Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager could improve the monitoring because it is very poor quality and not user-friendly. It is not as good as other solutions on the market."
"Anypoint could be improved by making it more open and configurable for small companies, who tend not to consider the solution as it's expensive and requires a lot of costs upfront."
"An area for improvement in MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is the process of applying policies because it's manual. It would be great if MuleSoft could make the process easier, particularly by automating it."
"The price has room for improvement."
"The high price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"In terms of improvements, maybe on the API monetization side, having users able to create separate consumption plans and throttle all those consumption plans towards the run time could be better."
"The configuring of the JWT token would be improved as it is a confusing process. We require more information on this part of the solution."
"Understanding the overall architecture is difficult."
"With performance, there is room for improvement in regards to if we would like to put another extra layer of security on it, such as SSL. This is affecting their performance quite significantly. They need to improve the process of managing the SSL and other things inside their solutions, so there will not be quite such a significant impact to the performance."
"With respect to the API gateway, the runtime component, the stability after a new release is something that can be improved."
"There are things that could be improved with the webMethods API gateway. One thing is that it's too attached to the integration service and we'd like it to be a little bit more independent. We would like for them to separate operations so that it doesn't rely on the bulky integration server and so that it can be used everywhere."
More MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is ranked 4th in API Management with 49 reviews while webMethods API Gateway is ranked 12th in API Management with 10 reviews. MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is rated 8.2, while webMethods API Gateway is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager writes "Responsive technical support, low tickets issued showing great stability, and limitless expansion". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods API Gateway writes "We developed several services in the cloud using a sandbox environment for our last hackathon". MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, IBM API Connect and Kong Gateway Enterprise, whereas webMethods API Gateway is most compared with Apigee, webMethods.io Integration, Kong Gateway Enterprise and webMethods Microgateway. See our MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager vs. webMethods API Gateway report.
See our list of best API Management vendors.
We monitor all API Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.